Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Claude is already FAR behind. Here's why. (Score 2) 17

Grok is a "discount model". It's cheaper than Claude Sonnet yet better than it. Doesn't compare to Fable or Opus, but then again, they're way more expensive models.

Note: I avoid using Grok - not just for the Musk factor, but because there are better options, e.g. GLM-5.3 and Qwen-3.8. Also, if you really want to save money, GLM-5.3 Flash and Qwen-3.8 Flash are amazingly good for their price range.

Comment Re:I know its not an original idea (Score 2) 19

The fact that it makes a big cloud around a galaxy or cluster rather than collapsing puts a lot of constraints on what it can do.

For more info, you'll have to go to someone who knows more about it than what I've read on science-news websites.

Dark energy is a real puzzle. As I understand it, it's too weak by a factor of 10^30 or 10^60 in comparison from what we should expect the known vacuum energy would cause. You see this mentioned very occasionally, but most treatments of DE that a layman runs across just ignore it in favor of wringing their hands over some issue that is trivial in comparison.

Comment Re:I know its not an original idea (Score 1) 19

Some boffin cam up with that idea, but they rule it out because DM apparently doesn't interact with itself (very much) other than by gravity, so it can't clump up tight like a star or a planet or a living thing. (Something to do with shedding energy, IIRC.)

But it's a cool idea. If I were a novelist I'd run with it.

Comment Re:OpenAI is dying and SpaceX is overvalued (Score 2) 28

Ed Zitron is a moron who has predicted the past nine out of zero AI crashes, who simultaneously gets paid to hate on AI while also getting paid to promote AI (DoNotPay).

The funny thing is that he openly acknowledges that inference is very profitable (~40% margins) for all parties - he just argues that you should count training. But that argument makes no sense, because if capital tightens across the AI industry, then everyone will cut back on training and scaleup, and... then what? Where's the implosion? Everyone is profitable then. You may lose certain players in competition against others (their as-mentioned profitable assets being gobbled up by others), but the industry remains healthy.

There are more dramatic types of possible contagion risk, but they all end up with *someone* holding onto the high-profit-generating inference assets, even if it's high-seniority investors, leaving the the low seniority investoors high and dry.

Comment Re:So What's the Benefit? (Score 2) 30

They've been launching dummysats from Starship for a number of launches now, so I'm not sure why you think they're "forever away". The only reasons they've been using dummysats and not actual satellites is 1) Not wanting to risk more valuable payloads thusfar, and 2) wanting to keep Starship suborbital (e.g. trajectory that reintersects the atmosphere) at just under orbital velocity until they can verify deorbit reliability (failure to do so would leave that massive ship falling onto a random point on Earth).

If they were to choose to, they could start launching payloads on all subsequent Starship missions, even if they're not yet ready for reliable recovery or quick reuse. In fact, given the killing off of Falcon 9 in Florida, one can presume that's the plan (if not immediately, then soon).

Slashdot Top Deals

If a thing's worth doing, it is worth doing badly. -- G.K. Chesterton

Working...